Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.048330456 = sum of:
  0.024613919 = product of:
    0.098455675 = sum of:
      0.098455675 = weight(_text_:authors in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.098455675 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02371654 = product of:
    0.04743308 = sum of:
      0.04743308 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04743308 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.036867306 = sum of:
  0.02009718 = product of:
    0.08038872 = sum of:
      0.08038872 = weight(_text_:authors in 5276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08038872 = score(doc=5276,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 5276, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5276)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016770126 = product of:
    0.033540253 = sum of:
      0.033540253 = weight(_text_:22 in 5276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033540253 = score(doc=5276,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049510952 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5276, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5276)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the rapid proliferation of Internet technologies and applications, misuse of online messages for inappropriate or illegal purposes has become a major concern for society. The anonymous nature of online-message distribution makes identity tracing a critical problem. We developed a framework for authorship identification of online messages to address the identity-tracing problem. In this framework, four types of writing-style features (lexical, syntactic, structural, and content-specific features) are extracted and inductive learning algorithms are used to build feature-based classification models to identify authorship of online messages. To examine this framework, we conducted experiments on English and Chinese online-newsgroup messages. We compared the discriminating power of the four types of features and of three classification techniques: decision trees, backpropagation neural networks, and support vector machines. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to identify authors of online messages with satisfactory accuracy of 70 to 95%. All four types of message features contributed to discriminating authors of online messages. Support vector machines outperformed the other two classification techniques in our experiments. The high performance we achieved for both the English and Chinese datasets showed the potential of this approach in a multiple-language context.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:14:37

0.011739088 = product of:
  0.023478176 = sum of:
    0.023478176 = product of:
      0.046956353 = sum of:
        0.046956353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046956353 = score(doc=2635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.010062075 = product of:
  0.02012415 = sum of:
    0.02012415 = product of:
      0.0402483 = sum of:
        0.0402483 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0402483 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17337891 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:13:32

0.008526511 = product of:
  0.017053021 = sum of:
    0.017053021 = product of:
      0.068212084 = sum of:
        0.068212084 = weight(_text_:authors in 4043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068212084 = score(doc=4043,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4043, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4043)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a range of scientific coauthorship networks, transitions emerge in degree distribution, in the correlation between degree and local clustering coefficient, etc. The existence of those transitions could be regarded because of the diversity in collaboration behaviors of scientific fields. A growing geometric hypergraph built on a cluster of concentric circles is proposed to model two specific collaboration behaviors, namely the behaviors of research team leaders and those of the other team members. The model successfully predicts the transitions, as well as many common features of coauthorship networks. Particularly, it realizes a process of deriving the complex "scale-free" property from the simple "yes/no" decisions. Moreover, it provides a reasonable explanation for the emergence of transitions with the difference of collaboration behaviors between leaders and other members. The difference emerges in the evolution of research teams, which synthetically addresses several specific factors of generating collaborations, namely the communications between research teams, academic impacts and homophily of authors.

0.008526511 = product of:
  0.017053021 = sum of:
    0.017053021 = product of:
      0.068212084 = sum of:
        0.068212084 = weight(_text_:authors in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068212084 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22571123 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049510952 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.